Partly allowed

Shakti Plastic Industries v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

NGT16 Apr 2026IA No. 220/2025 in Appeal No. 148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Pune Bench allowed the appellant's application to condone the significant delay in filing an appeal against an Environmental Damage Compensation order. The court stayed the impugned order and directed the appellant to retain a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Engineer to verify invoices and machinery capacity before further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; appeal dismissed in terms of mandatory directions for external verification of invoices and machinery capacity.

Shakti Plastic Industries vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.148 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.204 OF 2025 (WZ) & I.A. NO.220 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Shakti Plastic Industries

…..Appellant

Versus

MPCB & Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 16.04.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Raghunath B. Mahabal, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Ashok Sarogi, Advocate, along-with Mr. Vaibhav Satam and Ms. Shraddha Singh, Advocates Respondents : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-1/MPCB Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2 & 3/CPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 09.06.2025, 24.06.2025, 09.07.2025, 18.07.2025, 14.08.2025, 07.11.2025, 27.11.2025, 01.12.2025, 21.01.2026, 11.02.2026, 20.02.2026, 10.04.2026 and 15.04.2026.

¶16

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.1MPCB directing the appellant to deposit Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) amount of Rs.136,99,42,000/- plus penalty amount of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. total Rs.137,00,42,0O0/- in the account of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

¶17

Page 1 of 33

¶18

(MPCB) for excess quantity of EPR credit generated than actual quantity plastic waste processed.

¶19

The submission made by the appellant in this appeal is that earlier Original Application (Appeal) No.209 of 2024 was filed before this Tribunal on 01.10.2024. Since there was delay of few days, the appellant/applicant had preferred to file I.A. No.282 of 2024 (WZ) for condonation of delay in filing the said Original Application (Appeal). The said Original Application (Appeal) was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2025, a copy of which is annexed at page nos.24 to 26 of the paper book, relevant part of which is quoted herein below:-

¶20

“4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that subsequent to the said Closure Notice, MPCB issued a Notice dated 21.09.2024 to the applicant/appellant, directing it to pay an environmental compensation amount to the tune of Rs.137,00,42,000/- for the excess quantity of the EPR credits generated than the actual quantity of plastic waste processed. Therefore, it is prayed in the present appeal that the order dated 18.06.2024 with respect to Closure Notice and the 2nd order dated 21.09.2024 with respect to EDC issued by respondent No.1- MPCB may be quashed and set aside.

¶21

5. We find that against the 2nd order dated 21.09.2024 with respect to imposing an EDC amount, the present appeal has been filed on 11.10.2024, which is within 30 days of the passing of the said order. But with respect to 1st order of Closure Notice dated 18.06.2024, the present appeal is time barred.

¶22

6. From the side of respondent No.1- MPCB, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared before us, who submits that she has filed reply affidavit dated 21.01.2025 against the delay condonation application, wherein it is submitted that there is delay of 120 days in filing the present appeal and hence, the same is absolutely time barred. The applicant/appellant is challenging the Closure Direction passed by the MPCB on

¶23

Page 2 of 33

¶24

18.06.2024 and subsequent thereto the final order of EDC, which has been assailed in the present appeal, has been passed. Both the orders need to be read together because as a consequence of the 1st order of Closure, the 2nd order of EDC was passed and hence the limitation period would start from the date when the 1st order of Closure was passed.

¶25

7. We are convinced with the argument made by respondent No.1MPCB and find from perusal of the record that it is quite apparent that this appeal has been filed much beyond delay of 90 days’ period from passing of the 1st impugned order of Closure and the 2nd impugned order of EDC is a consequence of that order, hence from the 1st date of impugned order, the present appeal is time barred in view of the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides time period of 30 days to file the appeal from the date of the passing of the impugned order/ its communication and 60 days’ period beyond that, which is at the discretion of the Tribunal.

¶26

8. In view of above, I.A. No.282/2024(WZ) stands disposed of and consequent to that, Original Application (due to technical error on the website of NGT, this appeal has been wrongly converted into Original Application) No.209/2024(WZ) also stands dismissed being time barred.”

¶27

It is further mentioned in this appeal that the appellant/applicant could not get a copy of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the above-mentioned Original Application (appeal), as the same was not available. Thereafter, the appellant approached to the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.4407 of 2025 (M/s Shakti Plastic Industries Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) . During the course of hearing, the aforesaid facts were pointed out to the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and pursuant to that, the Hon'ble High Court had passed the following order on 01.04.2025:-

¶28

“ 1. Heard Mr. Saraogi, leaned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶29

Page 3 of 33

¶30

2. The order under challenge in this Petition is dated 21/9/2022 passed by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. By the impugned order, the Factory/ Plant of the Petitioner which was employing around 600 employees was directed to be closed down in view of alleged violations of Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016. Against the impugned order there is an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010.

¶31

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as there is a delay in filing the Appeal and the appeal may take a long time to be heard, therefore the present petition, as it question of survival of 600 employees.

¶32

4. As we have noticed above, the remedy for the Petitioner is to file statutory Appeal as provided by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is always open for the Petitioner to file an Application for condonation of delay setting out the reasons for delay in filing such an Appeal. If the Application for condonation of delay is so filed, obviously the National Green Tribunal shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, we dispose of the present Petition. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the contentions.

¶33

5. Mr. Saraogi submits that the hearing of the Appeal be expedited as it is the question of livelihood of 600 workers who are working in the Plant. Needless to mention that if a request is made to the Tribunal, obviously the Tribunal shall consider the said request for expeditious hearing on merits.”

¶34

The above order of Hon’ble High Court was later on got corrected by the applicant/appellant by moving an application before them in Writ Petition No.4407 of 2025 , wherein correction was made to the effect that in the earlier order of the Hon’ble High Court, in place of 21.09.2022, the same shall be read as 21.09.2024.

¶35

Page 4 of 33

¶36

The above correction would make it clear that when the applicant/appellant was assailing the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- MPCB by filing Original Application (Appeal) No.209 of 2024 (WZ) before this Tribunal, parallelly he also assailed the same order before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein above-mentioned order dated 01.04.2025 was passed and that the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal dismissing the delay condonation application passed in the abovementioned Original Application (appeal) on 27.01.2025 was not assailed.

¶37

It is further mentioned in this appeal that the appellant once again approached this Tribunal by filing the present Appeal under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and filed separate application for condonation of 273 days’ delay i.e. I.A. No.220 of 2025 (WZ).

¶38

When we enquired from learned counsel for the appellant as to how he has calculated the delay of 273 days in filing the present appeal, no proper explanation could be given.

¶39

We find that post amendment of the present appeal, now only the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- MPCB is being assailed herein. So, the delay in filing the present appeal would be counted from that date till the filing of the present appeal, which is filed on 23.04.2025 and hence the calculation of total number of days of delay would stand at 215 days.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the averments of the delay condonation application i.e. I.A. No.220 of 2025(WZ), wherein it is mentioned that the applicant/appellant had no reason to face such litigation earlier. The Applicant, on advice, has been following up the matter with the concerned Departments and concerned Ministers etc. It is also submitted that the same is established from the

¶41

Page 5 of 33

¶42

letters issued by the Applicant to different Departments, copies of which are annexed as Exhibit-“D” (Colly). Hence, the applicant, who has no such experience of any litigation, on advice, has been following up the matter with the respective Departments and Authorities to contest this matter. The applicant has also approached to the Hon’ble High Court after passing of the above-mentioned order by this Tribunal dismissing the earlier appeal. All these processes consumed lot of time of the appellant.

¶43

From the side of Respondent No.1- MPCB, reply dated 06.11.2025 to the delay condonation application has been filed, wherein following are submitted:-

¶44

“3. I say that the Applicant/ Appellant has mentioned a delay of 273 days, they have not made it clear from which date they have calculated the delay. In case they are restricting the challenge to the order dated 21/09/2024, the limitation has to start from 21/09/2024. This respondent received an email from the Appellant having filed the Amended Appeal on 13/08/2025. Thus the delay works out to 326 days and not 273 days as mentioned by the Appellant. At the outset this Respondent states that this Respondent is opposing the delay as the said Application is filed upon untrue and fabricated grounds.

¶45

4. ………………………………………………………………………………..

¶46

5. I say that the present Appeal is completely time barred as the Appellants, under the garb of challenging the direction dated 21/09/2024 imposing the environmental compensation plus penalty i.e. total Rs. 137,00,42000/- filed the present Appeal. I say that the fact that the Appellant has challenged only the subsequent order i.e. 21/09/2024 (imposing of the EDC) and let go of the challenge to the order dated 18/06/2024 (closure order), shows his unkind and casual approach towards the workers and the plea raised by the Appellant before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 4407/2025 (Exhibit Cat page 14 of the Delay Condonation Application) that it is a question of livelihood of 600 workers is all

¶47

Page 6 of 33

¶48

fake and bogus and purely afterthought and only an excuse to avoid payment of EDC.

¶49

6. I say that during personal hearing granted to the Appellants on 14/05/2024, it was decided to issue closure direction and to levy EDC as per provisions of Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 and amendments thereto on excess EPR credits generated than estimated plastic waste quantity processed. I say and submit that direction dated 21/09/2024 to levy EDC is the outcome of the personal hearing which was granted on 14/05/2024 and the direction dated 21/09/2024 cannot be seen in isolation. Therefore this Respondent stands by its contention that, the limitation to challenge the direction dated 21/09/2024 also would commence from 18/06/2024.1 say that the same has been rightly observed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in it's order dated 27/08/2025 passed in Appeal No. 209/2024 which is annexed and marked as Annexure A to this Reply.

¶50

7. I say that the Appellant is seeking exclusion of the period consumed in the previous Appeal and Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, however, they have not mentioned the date when the Appeal/ Writ was filed before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus the calculation of the period of 273 days delay as mentioned in the Application, is very vague and baseless.

¶51

It appears that learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3- CPCB has not filed response against the said delay condonation application.

¶52

From the above submissions of Respondent No.1-MPCB, we find that the main argument, which has been raised by learned counsel for Respondent No.1, is that there is actual delay of 326 days and not 273 days, as is being alleged by learned counsel for the appellant and that too, has not been specifically mentioned as to from which date, the appellant has calculated the delay of 273 days.

¶53

Page 7 of 33

¶54

Further, it is argued by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that without assailing the closure order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant to assail only the amount of EDC, which is a consequential order, which was already upheld by this Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to be assailed independently.

¶55

As regards the livelihood of 600 workers being at stake, the same is said to be an afterthought and bogus ground set up by the appellant because the conduct of the appellant would make it very clear that they have been very slack in approaching this Tribunal and has not explained the cause of delay appropriately. The main prayer of Respondent No.1 is that the present appeal may be dismissed at the very outset on the point of delay itself.

¶56

We have taken into consideration the order of the Hon’ble High Court, which is quoted above, wherein concern is shown for 600 employees, whose services are at stake, though there is no direction given to this Tribunal that the delay be condoned. As per the direction of Hon’ble High Court, liberty has been granted to this Tribunal to decide the issue in question on merit. Therefore, we take this fact into consideration, as alleged by the appellant that the applicant is not professional litigant and is not aware of how to contest the matter and hence, they have approached various persons and has been running to different Departments for the same, delay might have occurred in filing the present appeal.

¶57

We find that the applicant did not approach this Tribunal within time but they have sought amendment in the prayer clause and now, by amendment, they have assailed only the 2^nd order dated 21.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- MPCB, we give them benefit of time exhausted in approaching different Forums. If the appellant had approached us to assail

¶58

Page 8 of 33

¶59

that order dated 21.09.2024 at the very first instance, when they had filed the said Original Application (appeal) on 11.10.2024, the same would have been within time.

¶60

In view of above fact, we allow the delay condonation application/I.A. and condone the said delay in filing the present appeal.

¶61

I.A. NO.220 OF 2025 (WZ) stands disposed of.

¶62

APPEAL NO.148 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶63

The submission made by the appellant in this appeal is that the appellant is the oldest and largest recycling unit situated within the State of Maharashtra and has been operating in this field for the last 55 years after obtaining all the necessary licenses permissions etc. and is running its factory premises situated at Gat No.158/159, Village Nandgaon, Manor, District Palghar, wherein as many as 600 workers are gainfully employed.

¶64

It is further submitted in this appeal that the appellant has obtained the necessary Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board- Respondent No.1 which is valid up to 31.08.2026. Somewhere, on 31.08.2026 and 01.09.2023, the Officers of the Central Pollution Control Board, Pune conducted a surprise audit of the present facilities and in the said audit, they were given all the information and documents etc. After the complete detailed investigation and looking into all the documents, they were fully satisfied with the functioning of the company of the Appellant and thereafter, they have prepared a report dated 26.10.2023, in which following observations have been made:-

¶65

“ a. The plastic waste processing capacity of the Unit is 2,88,000 (Tonne per annum) TPA, as registered by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and CTE/CTO issued. The plant processing capacity as per the plant machinery and process

¶66

Page 9 of 33

¶67

flow diagram given in the application form is 17,760 TPA. The audit team found plant machinery corresponding to 17,760 TPA installed and commissioned in the Unit. The plant machinery corresponding to the registered capacity of 2,88,000TPA was neither declared on the EPR portal nor found to be installed and commissioned in the Unit by the Audit team.

¶68

b. The Unit has generated ERR Certificates of the order of 2,74,000 Tonnes and transferred EPR. Certificates of 2,68,000 Tonnes values to Producers/Importers/Brand Owners (PIBOs). Quantities mentioned in the invoices uploaded on EPR Portal by the Unit are fallacious & very high as compared to the declared production capacity since the plant operations had not yet commenced. As per the information on the EPR Portal, invoices were randomly verified and it has been observed that all verified invoices have been generated for Services provided towards collection and recycling and not for the requisite actual sales of recycled plastic.

¶69

c. No relevant information as stated below were made available to verify processing of 2,15,000 Tonnes of plastic waste and sale of corresponding quantity of finished product, by the Unit to the audit team:

¶70

i. Procurement of Plastic waste (Procurement invoices, Supplier details, etc.)

¶71

ii. Electricity consumption (Electricity bill)

¶72

iii. Procurement of additives required for processing plastic waste

¶73

iv. Sale of recycled plastic (GST Statement, Sales invoices, etc.)

¶74

d. Only 40 workers were available in the Unit as against 125 reported in the application form.

¶75

In view of the above, it is observed that EPR Certificates of the value of 2,56,240 tonnes have been generated by the Unit in excess of its actual processing capacity (17760 TPA) and the Unit neither has processing capacity for the said quantity nor relevant prescribed supporting documents/information for the same. The

¶76

Page 10 of 33

¶77

Unit has obtained registration and generated the said EPR certificates of 2,56,240 Tonnes without any actual processing of plastic waste at the Unit and by submitting false documents/information, which is in gross violation of provisions of EPR Guidelines notified as Schedule II of PWM Rules by MoEFCC and CPCB's. Guidance manual for operating Centralized EPR Portal and other directions/communications issued by CPCB from time to time in this regard. The process of generation of EPR Certificates by the Unit was also not monitored by MPCB, despite being the prescribed authority for enforcement as notified under the PWM Rules and having provision of viewing the PWP dashboard on the EPR portal.”

¶78

Pursuant to the above observations, following directions were issued to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB):-

¶79

1. To conduct detailed enquiry as to how physical verification of the units namely M/s The Shakti Plastics Industries and M/s. Technova Recycling India Pvt. Ltd (Reg. No, PR-20-MAH06-AAHCT3188J-23) was approved by MSPCB on the EPR portal, in view of the gross violations observed by the Audit team, as above, and also as to why the process of generation of EPR Certificates was not monitored by MSPCB.

¶80

2. To fix the liability on erring official/s and take disciplinary action against erring officials, if any, as per the findings of the enquiry set up, as at (1) above.

¶81

3. To immediately take the following actions against the aforementioned PWP Units namely M/s. The Shakti Plastics Industries (Reg No. PR-31-MAH-07-AAMPS7839M-23) and M/s. Technova Recycling India Pvt. Ltd (Reg No. PR-20-MAH06-AAHCT3188J-23)

¶82

i. To suspend the consent/authorization/registration issued to the Units with immediate effect and issue show cause notice for debarring the Unit from operating under the Extended Producer Responsibility framework for a period of one year as per Clause 11.4 of the EPR

¶83

Page 11 of 33

¶84

Guidelines or/ and for the revocation of the consent/authorization/registration issued to the Unit;

¶85

ii. To levy Environmental Compensation (EC), corresponding to the quantum of EPR certificates generated not in conformity with requirement prescribed in CPCB Guidance manual for operating Centralized EPR Portal. The EC is to be levied as per "Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Compensation to be levied for violation of PWP Rules” and Unit be directed to deposit the same in the designated Escrow Account, created by the MPCB for the purpose.

¶86

iii. To take necessary action against every Unit as per applicable law as the Units have submitted false documents for obtaining registration as well as for generating EPR certificates. It may further be ensured that action taken by MPCB regarding these units should act as a deterrent for other Units in committing such violations.

¶87

4. To take immediate necessary actions to improve upon the system of grant of registration within MSPCB, monitoring and enforcement thereto ensuring compliance of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, EPR guidelines and directions/guidelines issued by CPCB, including the following:

¶88

i. Inspection of all processing facilities of Registered PWPs in your jurisdiction within a fortnight from the issue of these Directions and to confirm that the Processing capacity as per the Registration granted to units is in conformity with the actual facilities provided in each Unit. All other Information provided in the online application form are also to be revalidated by MPCB.

¶89

ii. Regular monitoring of EPR Certificate generation process of the Registered PWPs to ensure that EPR Certificates generated by PWPs are in accordance with requirements prescribed in the CPCB guidance manual including

¶90

Page 12 of 33

¶91

uploading of GST E-invoice corresponding to the sales of finished products on the EPR Portal.

¶92

5. To take all necessary steps to ensure that every Unit henceforth complies with all conditions including generating GST E-invoice for all sales of finished products and uploads the same on the EPR Portal, falling which necessary action be immediately taken including levying of EC against each non-complying Unit.”

¶93

It is further submitted in this appeal that as per the above directions of the CPCB, the MPCB also conducted a surprise follow-up audit of the appellant’s industry on 08.11.2023, a copy of which is annexed from page nos.57 to 65 of the paper book, wherein following conclusions are drawn:-

¶94

“ i. Shakti plastic industries has 26 machineries for plastic waste processing with production capacity (as per invoices/ data sheets provided by industry for the machinery) of minimum of 2.32 latch ton per annum to maximum of 4.51 lakh ton per annum of production, which is in line with the consented capacity and plastic EPR registration quantity Of 2,88,000 ton per annum.

¶95

ii. Electricity bills submitted by industry are in line with consented capacity of industry.

¶96

iii. Physical verification of the industry was conducted as per SOP formulated by CPCB.

¶97

iv. It is noted that the industry has generated some of the EPR credits for Services provided towards collection and recycling and not for the requisite actual sales of recycled plastic/granules.

¶98

v. Shakti plastic industries has submitted soft copies of around 17,800 GST invoices for the plastic waste for plastic EPR portal of CPCB website. In view of the voluminous data, and also it was not possible to come out with opinion w.r.t. quantity of actual plastic waste processing carried out by the

¶99

Page 13 of 33

¶100

industry. Therefore, it is recommended that Chartered Account may be appointed for verification of the invoices.”

¶101

It is further submitted in this appeal that the appellant also submitted a Third-Party Report on Machinery Capacity Audit for Manufacturing and Feasibility of Effluent Treatment Plant of Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT) dated 15^th February, 2024, which states that the capacity of the equipment in the Petitioner's plant is 1420 TPD (tonnes per day) which comes to 5,18,300 TPA. This report further supports the claim that the registered processing capacity is in-line with the actual capacity of our equipment, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-“F”.

¶102

It is further submitted in this appeal that the appellant provided electricity bills from June 2022 to December 2023, which reflect the actual consumption needed for the production. Therefore, electricity consumption of the industry for F.Y. 2022-23 i.e. 23.33 lakhs kWh, corresponds to 11.66 lakh tonnes of plastic recycling, demonstrates that the power consumption aligns with industry standards. Further, it is submitted that as per the sales records, the technical glitches in the EPR portal have been welldocumented and communicated to the authorities. The assessed power consumption based on the electricity bills reflects the accurate power usage for the production process. A copy of the same is annexed as Exhibit-“H”.

¶103

It is further submitted in this appeal that the Appellant had diligently uploaded all the sales Invoice on the Portal, but due to some technical glitch, the invoices were not reflecting. Thereafter, the Appellant through its multiple emails to CPCB has addressed about the technical glitch on the portal. However, as an alternative, the Appellant has all 698 sales entries as an alternative method reflecting the sales of recycled products. On 08^th April, 2024, a Show Cause notice was issued by Respondent No.1 for closure under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air

¶104

Page 14 of 33

¶105

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read-with Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. A copy of the same is annexed as Exhibit-“J”.

¶106

It is further submitted in this appeal that on 09^th April, 2024, the appellant had replied to the show cause notice dated 08^th April, 2024, informing therein to the MPCB that they have obtained all the necessary permissions and consents which are needed for the commencement of the recycling unit. On 18.05.2024, the Appellant gave detailed reply and the relevant documents addressing all the 6 discrepancies which were raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2024. Further, it is mentioned that instead of considering the documents supplied by the Appellants, the CPCB has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which needs to be set aside on the ground that there is false allegation levelled against the appellant that appropriate sales invoices of recycled products were not found uploaded on the EPR Portal by the appellant.

¶107

It is further mentioned in the grounds of this appeal that (i)- the allegation, with respect to clause 5(a) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, Grinding and Agglomerate of plastic does not amount to transforming of plastic waste and hence the same cannot be considered as recycling, is out-rightly baseless and false.

¶108

At this stage, we have gone through the relevant clause 5(a) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, which is quoted herein below:-

¶109

“Plastic waste, which can be recycled, shall be channelized to registered plastic waste recycler and recycling of plastic shall conform to the Indian Standard: IS 14534:1998 titled as Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics, as amended from time to time;", which states that this clause should conform to the Indian Standard IS 14534:1998 and the amended BIS notification. As per the Indian Standard IS 14534:2016 titled Plastics - Guidelines for the recovery and recycling of plastics waste (First Revision),

¶110

Page 15 of 33

¶111

the process of recyclate production process as mentioned in 5.2.2.3 Recyclates are usually conditioned as agglomerate or regrind in the form of fluff, flake, chips, pellets or powder. Addition of modifiers or stabilizers may also be carried out in order to IS enhance the value of recyclates for subsequent use…..”

¶112

Now, in light of above provision, we would like to scrutinize the Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2024, which is annexed from page nos.256 to 258 of the paper book, wherein following is recorded:-

¶113

“AND WHEREAS, As per the clause 3.0 of EPR guidelines ‘Recycling’ means the process of transforming segregated plastic waste into a new product or raw material for producing new products. Accordingly, the PWP (recyclers) can be registered on the EPR portal for production of pellets/chips/products (process code R1 to R6) and EPR certificates can be generated for the sale of the same . Grindings & agglomerates of plastic waste does not amount to transforming of plastic waste and hence cannot be considered as product from ‘Recycling process’……” .

¶114

The above Show-Cause Notice, on the basis of which the amount of EDC has been levied from the appellant, is not in accordance with the Clause 5 (a) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 and IS 14534:2023, which allows the raw material for producing new produce also as a part of recycling.

¶115

The next ground, which has been set up by the appellant, is that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has granted Consent to Operate dated 15.06.2023, which is annexed at page nos.29 to 38 of the paper book, to the appellant for plastic granules & reprocessing plastic granules (without washing activity); plastic grinding & agglomerate (without washing activity); plastic granules & reprocess plastic granules (with washing activity); and plastic grinding & agglomerate (with washing activity)

¶116

Page 16 of 33

¶117

and yet they are denying the appellant for generating the EPR for these products.

¶118

In regard to the above, we may quote here the condition no.13 of the Consent to Operate dated 15.06.2023 which states “ EPR Registration under PWM Rules 2016 is granted by the Board to the industry vide letter No. PRMAH-07-AAFPP9556R-22 dated 18.07.2022 for earlier consented capacity and industry shall apply for amendment in EPR registration quantity as per this amalgamation within 15 days” .

¶119

Except the above-mentioned grounds, no other grounds have been raised by the appellant in this appeal.

¶120

In response to the above appeal, Respondent No.1- MPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 06.11.2025, wherein it is submitted that the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) vide Notification dated 16.02.2022 has amended the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, wherein in Schedule- II inserted Guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Plastic Packaging. Thereafter, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has developed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for registration of Plastic Waste Processors (PWPs) on March 15^th , 2023 and uploaded the same on CPCB website in accordance with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) guidelines.

¶121

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the EPR Guidelines provide that Central Pollution Control Board by itself or through a designated agency shall verify compliance of Producers, Importers & Brand-Owners through inspection and periodic audit, as deemed appropriate. Central Pollution Control Board, as required, can also verify compliance of Plastic Waste Processors (PWPs) through inspection and periodic audit. In case of Plastic Waste Processors and Producers,

¶122

Page 17 of 33

¶123

Importers & Brand-Owners operating in a State or Union Territory, Central Pollution Control Board may, if required, direct State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee to take action. It is further submitted that the Appellant-M/s Shakti Plastics Industries, Palghar is engaged in recycling of plastic waste, having plant at Gat Nos.158, 159, Nandgaon, Manor, Tal-Palghar, which was granted the Amalgamation of Consent to Operate dated 15.06.2023 for total plastic waste processing capacity of 2,88,000 Tonnes Per Annum (TPA) (earlier CTO capacity of 1,20,000 TPA -I. expansion of 1,68,000 TPA), for following products:-

¶124

“ i. Plastic granules & reprocess plastic granules (without washing activity)- 7500 MT/Month

¶125

ii. Plastic grinding & agglomerate (Without washing activity) 2500 - MT/Month

¶126

iii. Plastic granules & reprocess plastic granules (with washing activity) 10000 -MT/Month

¶127

iv. Plastic grinding & agglomerate (with washing activity) - 4000 MT/Month”

¶128

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the CPCB- Respondent No.3 has conducted random sample audit of the appellant’s industry on August 31, 2023 and September 01, 2023 respectively in accordance with Clause 12.4 of the EPR Guidelines. Thereafter, on the basis of non-compliances observed during the said visit, the CPCB issued directions on 26.10.2023 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the Answering Respondent and directed to ensure compliance of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, EPR Guidelines and directions/ guidelines issued by the CPCB. The CPCB further directed to inspect all processing facilities of registered PWPs in MPCB's jurisdiction and confirm that the processing capacity as per the Registration granted to the units is in conformity with the actual facilities

¶129

Page 18 of 33

¶130

provided in each unit. It was also directed for regular monitoring of EPR Certificate generation process of the Registered PWPs to ensure that EPR Certificates generated by PWP's are in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the CPCB in the guidelines.

¶131

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the CPCB has issued Office Order to investigate the matter by joint inspection by MPCB & CPCB. Accordingly, a joint inspection was conducted to the appellant’s industry by the team of CPCB and the Officials of the Answering Respondent on 30.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 and submitted detailed report as follows:-

¶132

The assessed production capacity of the unit is 10,141.2 TPA as per the trial run, wherein the Registered Processing capacity is 2,88,000 TPA.

¶133

Assessed Average Monthly power consumption as per the trial run is 27,456 KWh for production of 842 TPM i.e. 10,141.2 TPA. However, as per electricity bills of 3 months (i.e. September'23 to November'23) is 17,455 KWH which is 64% of power consumption required for production. Based on the electricity consumption, the actual production for a year is assessed as 6447 TPA.

¶134

The inspection team also assessed the production capacity of machines was found to be 64,377.45 TPA out of which 45,892 TPA is from grindings and 18,485 TPA is from agglomerates.

¶135

As per clause 3.0 of EPR guidelines `Recycling' means the process of transforming segregated plastic waste into a new product or raw material for producing new products.

¶136

As per the Indian standard IS 14534:1998 titled Guidelines for Recycling of plastics, the process of recycling of plastic waste includes "the cleaned and washed material as obtained in 7.3.1 may be blended with additives, processing aids, pigments etc., as the case may be, and finally granulated by

¶137

Page 19 of 33

¶138

using appropriate screen mesh for filtration of contaminants and impurities."

¶139

Appropriate sales invoices of recycled products were not found uploaded on the EPR Portal by the unit. The industry has made 698 sale entries on EPR portal till date. No invoice has been uploaded for the sale of recycled plastic on the EPR Portal. 468 no. of the invoices have been issued for services provided by the unit. For the remaining 228 sale entries, invoices have not been uploaded. Only 2 invoices correspond to the sale of grinded plastic waste of quantity 11.6 Tons uploaded on the EPR Portal.

¶140

The sale of recycled plastic was not confirmed by the buyers as claimed by the unit.”

¶141

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that on the basis of aforesaid non-compliances, the Answering Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice for closure to the Appellant’s industry on 08.04.2024, to which the Appellant has not submitted satisfactory reply. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent has extended an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant’s Industry on 14.05.2024. During the personal hearing, it was observed that the Appellant’s Industry had generated EPR credits for services provided towards collection and recycling and not for the requisite actual sales of recycled plastic/granules for total 2,73,988.4 Tonnes. Considering the BIS 14534:2023, the Grinding, Agglomeration & extruder activity, the total capacity of the plant is 74519 TPA, which is also less than registered processing capacity of 2,88,000 TPA. During the personal hearing, it was decided that the Appellant’s Industry shall again submit point-wise reply with supporting documents to the said Show Cause Notice for Closure within seven days. Accordingly, the Appellant’s Industry has submitted its reply vide e-mail dated 18.05.2024, as follows:-

Page 20 of 33

“

Page 21 of 33

Page 22 of 33

Page 23 of 33

Page 24 of 33

”

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that as per Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2022, Section (11.4), in case, at any stage, it is found that the information provided by the plastic waste processor is false, the plastic waste processor shall be debarred by

¶150

Page 25 of 33

¶151

State Pollution Control Board, as per procedure laid down by Central Pollution Control Board, from operating under the Extended Producer Responsibility framework for a period of one year. On the basis of false information provided by the Appellant, the compensation amount of Rs.137,00,42,000/- is imposed to it. Unless and until the said compensation amount is deposited by the Appellant for the past violations, question of lifting of debarment does not arise.

¶152

In regard to the above, learned counsel for Respondent No.1- MPCB has further submitted that no debarment order has been passed by Respondent No.1 till date. It is only a closure direction issued to the appellant’s industry.

¶153

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the Appellant’s industry is still closed since the closure order dated 18.06.2024. Moreover, the Answering Respondent has not approved Appellant’s portal to generate any points in future. The Answering Respondent has disapproved the portal of the Appellant on 23.07.2024. Moreover, the Appellant has to submit an Application for debarment to the Board which the Appellant has not submitted till date.

¶154

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that for Environmental Compensation, CPCB framed Guidelines for assessment of environment compensation to be levied for violation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 on April 2024, as under:-

¶155

(a) As per Environmental Compensation Guidelines 4.0 Action to be Taken for Non- Compliance of PWM Rules (a) EC Assessment & Penal Action.

¶156

(b) As per point no. 12.4, 13.1 & 11.6 of the EC Guidelines, misreporting in quantity of plastic procured, EPR certificate generated EC to be levied @ Rs. 5000/T of plastic weight

¶157

Page 26 of 33

¶158

misreported (for 2nd time default EC to be levied @ Rs.10000/per ton and for 3rd time default @ Rs.20000/- per ton)

¶159

(c) It is noticed that Appellant-Industry has generated 2,74,000 Tons of EPR credits and in which only 11.6 Tons EPR credits generated towards sale invoice of grinded plastic waste which is uploaded on EPR portal and remaining 2,73,988.4 Tons EPR credits generated for the Services provided towards collection and recycling and not for the requisite actual sales of recycled plastic/granules for total quantity 2,73,988.4 Tons. Hence, the Environmental Compensation calculated @5000/Ton i.e Rs. 1,36,99,40,000/-.

¶160

(d) As per point no 10.1 & 11.4 of the EC Guidelines, - Submission of False information: Cancellation of Registration and & EC of double of Application fee proportionate Penalty up to Rs. 1,00,000/- (For 2nd time default EC of four times the application fees and 3rd time default EC of eight times the application fees). Accordingly proportionate Penalty Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed to the Industry.”

¶161

In view of the above non-compliances, the Answering Respondent issued directions of closure dated 18.06.2024 to the Appellant’s Industry and directed them to stop their manufacturing activities forthwith.

¶162

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the Answering Respondent has also issued letter dated 21.09.2024 to the Appellant’s Industry to levy Environmental Compensation as per provisions of Plastic Waste Management Rules,2016 & amendment thereto on excess EPR credits generated than estimated plastic waste quantity processed and directed to deposit the Environment Compensation amount of Rs.136,99,42,000/-+ Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Total Rs.137,00,42000/in the account of Respondent-MPCB. The Answering Respondent has given reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to deposit the amount of Environment Damage Compensation, however, the Appellant failed to deposit the said amount till date.

¶163

Page 27 of 33

¶164

Respondent Nos.2 & 3- CPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 10.02.2026, wherein it is submitted that as per the Indian Standard IS 14534:1998 titled Guidelines for Recycling of plastics , the process of recycling of plastic waste includes “the cleaned and washed material as obtained in 7.3.1 may be blended with additives, processing aids, pigments etc., as the case may be, and finally granulated by using appropriate screen mesh for filtration of contaminants and impurities”. Further, clause 5.2.2.1.1 titled ‘Sequence of operations’ under "Mechanical Recycling" of the Indian Standards IS 14534:2023 (as amended) titled as "Plastics- Recovery and Recycling of Plastic Waste - Guidelines (Second Revision)”, stipulates that “The mechanical recycling generally comprises of the following sequence of operations, some of which may occur simultaneously, that are carried out as part of the recyclate preparation and production process: Collection — Identification — Sorting/Separating (Into types and forms of plastic) — Grinding/Shredding — Washing — Drying — Agglomerating / Mixing — Extruding / Compounding —Pelletizing.”

¶165

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the grindings and agglomerates of plastic waste are intermediates of the recycling process. Such intermediates, when subjected to Extruding/ Compounding or Pelletization at any other recycling facilities, may have repeated EPR certificate potential generation for the same plastic wastes, from which intermediates have been produced and the recyclers, who generated such intermediates, may have already generated EPR certificate for the same. Taking this fact into account and in line with the provisions laid down under clause 3(t) and 4(g) of the PWM Rules, the aforesaid IS 14534 and in exercise of provisions under clause 11.6 and 11.7 of the Guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Packaging, CPCB has not recognized intermediates for EPR certificate generation, so as

¶166

Page 28 of 33

¶167

to avoid possibilities of repeated/ duplicate EPR certificate generation and have effective framework of EPR implementation in the country. It is also submitted that the EPR portal currently does not allow EPR certificate generation for sales invoices pertaining to intermediates, such as flakes/ chips/ grindings/ agglomerates.

¶168

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that under the provisions of clause 12.4 of Guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Packaging, notified under Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2022, audit of the Appellant's Unit was carried out by the CPCB, Regional Directorate, Pune during 31.08.2023 to 01.09.2023, in which following observations and findings were made:-

¶169

“ (i). The Appellant's Unit is registered with the MPCB for a plastic waste processing capacity of 2 88.000 T/Annum. However, during the assessment of production capacity undertaken during CPCB's Audit, the actual capacity was observed to be only 17,760 T/Annum, which is 6.2% of the registered capacity of the Unit.

¶170

(ii). During inspection, desired information regarding electricity Bill of 3 months for evaluation of power consumption of installed machinery was not made available to the inspecting team. Further, it is observed that the facility has not installed separate energy meters for each of the installed machinery(s).

¶171

(iii). The Unit generated approximately 2.74.000 Tonnes of EPR Certificates and transferred about 2,68,000 Tonnes to registered Producers. Importers, Brand Owners (PIBOs), which is disproportionately high i.e. 2,56,240 Tonnes of EPR Certificates in excess as compared to the assessed plastic waste processing capacity i.e. 17.760 T/Annum. Further, random verification of invoices uploaded on the EPR Portal revealed that all uploaded invoices were

¶172

Page 29 of 33

¶173

generated for "Services" related to collection and recycling, and not for actual sale of recycled plastic products.

¶174

(iv). It was observed that EPR certificates were generated by the unit without having the requisite infrastructure facility and through submission of false or misleading information which is in violation of the clause 11.4 of the Guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Packaging, notified under Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2022 and CPCB's direction 21.12.2022.”

¶175

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that with regard to this Tribunal’s order dated 21.01.2026, directing the CPCB to clarify the need for the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for the verification of approximately 17,800 invoices, as mentioned by the Respondent No. 1 (MPCB) in its Interim Report dated 05 01.2024, it is clarified as follows:-

¶176

“ (i). The EPR Certificate generation process is dependent on the invoices uploaded w.r.t. sale of recycled product, as per para no. 5(l) and para no. 5(m) above of this affidavit.

¶177

(ii). Total no. of invoices (17, 800 nos.) as mentioned by MPCB in the aforesaid Interim Report, dated 05.01.2024, includes the invoice entries both for the sale and procurement of plastic packaging waste whereas pre-requisite for EPR certificate generation is uploading of GST e-invoices for sale of plastic product on the EPR portal which has been violated by the appellant as submitted in para 5(q) (iii) above.

¶178

(iii). During the Joint Audit carried-out by CPCB and MPCB in January. 2024, invoices w.r.t. sale of recycled plastic product have already been successfully verified by the Joint Audit Team in its audit carried-out in January. 2024. as submitted at Para no. 5(q)(iii) above of the reply affidavit.

¶179

(iv). In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that there is no further requirement for appointment of Chartered Accountant for verification of the invoices.

¶180

Page 30 of 33

¶181

(v). It is also humbly submitted that generating EPR certificates without uploading prescribed GST e-invoices (i.e. 66,988 Tonnes of EPR certificate without uploading any GST e- invoices. 11.6 Tonnes of EPR certificates generation by uploading GST invoices of intermediates instead of prescribed recycled product and remaining EPR certificates generation by uploading GST invoices pertaining to "Services" instead of prescribed recycled product), besides huge deficit in installed processing capacity and electricity consumptions as observed during the aforesaid two audits also amounts to fallacious activities by the Appellant in the light of the aforesaid CPCB 's Guidance Manual, SoP and CPCB direction dated 21 12 2022, wherein it was also directed that action shall be initiated against the PWPs which are found in non-compliance of the provisions of the said direction of uploading GST E-invoice details on the EPR Portal.

¶182

(vi). In view of the aforesaid gross violations and with fallacious activities, no relief should be given to the Appellant. Any relief in this regard may also turn out to be disturbances / imbalances in EPR certificate generation and EPR regime which has been introduced with noble intent of controlling plastic waste menace in the country and other PWPs may also take advantage of such fallacious activities.”

¶183

We may also take into consideration here the Audit Report of the appellant’s industry, which is annexed as Annexure-II from page nos.792 to 808 of the paper book, wherein at page no.796 of the paper book, following is observed:-

¶184

“As observed from the EPR portal, there are 14,529 entries for the procumbent of plastic waste from PIBOs, 105 entries for production and 522 entries for the sales of the products i.e. granules which is huge in number (total15,156). Further, data/information related to procurement of plastic waste and sale of granules-product are yet not provided by the Facility. It is submitted that Audit Certificate from Chartered Accountant regarding purchase of plastic waste under different category of

¶185

Page 31 of 33

¶186

waste and sale of products/semi-products by the facility may be obtained from the Facility for verification. Further, certificate from Chartered Engineer regarding capacity of the machineries and power load may be obtained.”

¶187

Having gone through the above findings of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as well, it is quite clear that the recommendation of the CPCB itself was to the effect that the Audit Certificate from Chartered Accountant regarding purchase of plastic waste under different category of waste and sale of products/semi-products by the facility may be obtained. Further, it is recommended by the CPCB that a certificate from the Chartered Engineer regarding capacity of the machineries and power load may be obtained by the appellant’s industry. Both these recommendations have not been followed by the CPCB/MPCB/appellant’s industry.

¶188

In view of above, we deem it appropriate, in the case in hand, to get the analysis of the said invoices done, which have been placed on record by learned counsel for the appellant before this Tribunal and a copy of the same has also been provided to the learned counsel for the other parties, for which a Chartered Accountant needs to be engaged. In our opinion, name of the Chartered Accountant should be obtained from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Pune Branch, to whom the Registry shall write a letter to suggest a panel of three names, to whom this Tribunal may direct to conduct the said study in the case in hand. We will determine the terms and reference after the name of the Chartered Accountant is suggested.

¶189

We further deem it appropriate to engage a Chartered Engineer for assessing the capacity of the machinery, which is installed by the appellant in its industry, whether the same is as per the consent capacity or not.

¶190

Page 32 of 33

¶191

A proposal is put forth by the learned counsel for the parties that a panel of the names of the Chartered Engineer may be obtained from the College of Engineering, Pune. Therefore, we direct the learned Assistant Registrar to write a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the said University to suggest a panel of three names of the Charter Engineers within a period of one month.

¶192

The expenses regarding the said study shall be borne by the appellant.

¶193

Put up this matter for further consideration on 04.06.2026.

¶194

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶195

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶196

April 16, 2026 APPEAL NO.148 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.204 OF 2025 (WZ) & I.A. NO.220 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶197

Page 33 of 33

Shakti Plastic Industries v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Plastic Industries v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Moto Letter Petition by Mr Ram Singh Khara Titled Parsdhusan Ko Lekar Gramino Ka Bada Faishla Kaiyon Ne Bacchon Ko Nahi Bheja School Dated 12TH December 2025 vs State of Rajasthan

Suo Moto Letter Petition by Mr Ram Singh Khara Titled Parsdhusan Ko Lekar Gramino Ka Bada Faishla Kaiyon Ne Bacchon Ko Nahi Bheja School Dated 12TH December 2025 vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

K. Saravanan vs the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

Jitender Gautam Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Pravinsing Arjun Shedgaonkar vs M/S Golden Globe Hotels Private Limited

Saarthak Gupta vs Goa State Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled No Permission Provided for Use of Chemicals in Cleaning Water Bodies: Mpcb Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 23.02.2024 vs Pune Muncipal Corporation

Jitender Gautam Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Sandeep M Chodankar vs Goa State Pollution Control Board